t a 32-bit system.
+1. Unless you are in spitting distance of the 32bit limit, I would
prefer to stick to 32bit.
>> >A future memory upgrade (not planned as to when) will obviously push
>> >more people into the space where>2G RAM per process would be
>> >beneficial, so I will consider switching to only 64-bit by that
>> >time. Will anyone be terribly upset to leave 32-bit behind?
Upset, a little; no where near jumping ship (as BitFolk has always
exceeded expectations) but would prefer to keep the 32bit option (if
possible). Is it not possible to boot a 32bit Dom1 kernel from a 64bit
Dom0? Or is the overhead of maintaining the two sets of bootstraps?
~Mat
From andy@??? Wed Jun 06 11:07:00 2012
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1ScE4p-0001vB-IN
for users@???; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:06:59 +0000
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:06:59 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: users@???
Message-ID: <20120606110659.GJ11695@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
<4FC3C56E.7030302@???>
<20120604083741.GB24956@???>
<CAHORQ3cwda6GaKCTsEXOgR4meYbzNaAwU1aAnqJzBVGa3s+nmQ@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CUrluEZVXmx7ezWQ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHORQ3cwda6GaKCTsEXOgR4meYbzNaAwU1aAnqJzBVGa3s+nmQ@???>
OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Wed,
06 Jun 2012 11:06:59 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_RELAYS shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] 64-bit support
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:07:03 -0000
--CUrluEZVXmx7ezWQ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mat,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:55:39AM +0100, Mat Johns wrote:
> Is it not possible to boot a 32bit Dom1 kernel from a 64bit Dom0?
> Or is the overhead of maintaining the two sets of bootstraps?
The dom0s are already 64-bit, I was just trying to avoid having to
double the number of combinations of install type (and explain to
people which one they want). But feelings seem quite strong both
ways.
Cheers,
Andy
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
--CUrluEZVXmx7ezWQ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREDAAYFAk/POdMACgkQIJm2TL8VSQv4aACgrGjBAE4+y626niu0fPEnDXbE
MNIAmwfa5eUIkX0NwRH+8S7TECdKrKwD
=N0Cm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--CUrluEZVXmx7ezWQ--
From ewan@??? Wed Jun 06 11:16:37 2012
Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ewan@???>)
id 1ScEE7-0002yy-Dl
for users@???; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:16:36 +0000
Received: by obbef5 with SMTP id ef5so14728292obb.21
for <users@???>; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 04:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=nutmegdata.co.uk; s=google;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=N6Ep6HVZLQZTwqz3gIV
